arnonel Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 For me, it's going to hurt much more when Jose Enrique leaves, because I've grown far more attached to him than I ever did with Carroll. I agree. Ill miss Colo, Enrique, Barton, Tiote and Barfa more than Carrol. Although, after 3 seasons of current form, that would have changed. Or Not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon25 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 My issue isn't with Carroll's comments on Liverpool's website. Of course he's going to say that. What's wrong is that he's contradicted himself by coming out in the Chronicle yesterday and saying completely the opposite. You can't appease all sides. As I've said yesterday Carroll had tried to use the fans as a pawn in all of this, and that is absolutely disgusting in all of this from the hatred from the fans towards Ashley. I would rather he just admitted he tried to extract more money from the club from the situation, but he won't. Exactly. Has done far more harm than good in this instance for a club that he 'loves'/loved. All he's done is to stoke the embers of tension already existing between Ashley and the fans. I'm no Ashley apologist, but this endless debate is doing nothing disrupt the situation further. He genuinely excited me as a player - the first man to do so since Shearer. Somehow you had the feeling that if he was playing there was always a possibility that we could score. He's gone now though. Let's move on. He's not the first player to excite fans and he won't be the last. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShearMagic Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 For me, it's going to hurt much more when Jose Enrique leaves, because I've grown far more attached to him than I ever did with Carroll. Good job he's not leaving then! I did say 'when' for a reason. Would be very surprised if he didn't leave in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 My issue isn't with Carroll's comments on Liverpool's website. Of course he's going to say that. What's wrong is that he's contradicted himself by coming out in the Chronicle yesterday and saying completely the opposite. You can't appease all sides. As I've said yesterday Carroll had tried to use the fans as a pawn in all of this, and that is absolutely disgusting in all of this from the hatred from the fans towards Ashley. I would rather he just admitted he tried to extract more money from the club from the situation, but he won't. Exactly. Has done far more harm than good in this instance for a club that he 'loves'/loved. All he's done is to stoke the embers of tension already existing between Ashley and the fans. I'm no Ashley apologist, but this endless debate is doing nothing disrupt the situation further. He genuinely excited me as a player - the first man to do so since Shearer. Somehow you had the feeling that if he was playing there was always a possibility that we could score. He's gone now though. Let's move on. He's not the first player to excite fans and he won't be the last. No player will ever be bigger than this club, no matter how good they are. As soon as players think like that they can fuck off imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3385830/Derek-Llambias-Newcastle-did-not-want-to-sell-Andy-Carroll.html NEWCASTLE chief Derek Llambias last night insisted: We did not force Andy Carroll out of the Toon. Llambias was upset and dismayed at Carroll's claims the Geordie club just wanted to cash in and pocket a £35million profit on the local hero. Managing director Llambias said: "We didn't push Andy Carroll out, far from it - he asked to go. "The fact is Mike Ashley didn't want to sell him, it's not like he needs the money is it? And remember we turned down bids of £30m and then £35m from Liverpool. "That's serious money for a 22-year-old with only six months' experience in the Premier League. But finally Mike's point of view was the player's put in a transfer request, so what can we do? "Andy was already earning top money at the club after signing a new deal recently. "But he said he'd been offered £80,000-a-week from Liverpool and asked what we would pay to make him stay. We told him the club just couldn't afford to give him a deal like that, nothing close. "And when we said 'No' - well, that's when he put in his transfer request." Toon manager Alan Pardew said: "If he had really wanted to stay, he could have. "We certainly didn't twist his arm to put in the transfer request or get on the helicopter. "He had a five-year contract, a contract we said we would renew in the summer, but he wanted to renew it straight away." Llambias added: "Yes, he went in our helicopter. But the sooner the deal was done the sooner we could make our own moves in the transfer market. It was already very late. "We will spend in the summer. Every penny of the £35m will stay in the club." Someone explain the difference to me please. Particularly when related to the last line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3385830/Derek-Llambias-Newcastle-did-not-want-to-sell-Andy-Carroll.html NEWCASTLE chief Derek Llambias last night insisted: We did not force Andy Carroll out of the Toon. Llambias was upset and dismayed at Carroll's claims the Geordie club just wanted to cash in and pocket a £35million profit on the local hero. Managing director Llambias said: "We didn't push Andy Carroll out, far from it - he asked to go. "The fact is Mike Ashley didn't want to sell him, it's not like he needs the money is it? And remember we turned down bids of £30m and then £35m from Liverpool. "That's serious money for a 22-year-old with only six months' experience in the Premier League. But finally Mike's point of view was the player's put in a transfer request, so what can we do? "Andy was already earning top money at the club after signing a new deal recently. "But he said he'd been offered £80,000-a-week from Liverpool and asked what we would pay to make him stay. We told him the club just couldn't afford to give him a deal like that, nothing close. "And when we said 'No' - well, that's when he put in his transfer request." Toon manager Alan Pardew said: "If he had really wanted to stay, he could have. "We certainly didn't twist his arm to put in the transfer request or get on the helicopter. "He had a five-year contract, a contract we said we would renew in the summer, but he wanted to renew it straight away." Llambias added: "Yes, he went in our helicopter. But the sooner the deal was done the sooner we could make our own moves in the transfer market. It was already very late. "We will spend in the summer. Every penny of the £35m will stay in the club." Someone explain the difference to me please. Particularly when related to the last line. What is it you find confusing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we don't need £30m, why can't we afford anything close to £80k/week? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we don't need £30m, why can't we afford anything close to £80k/week? its called a wage structure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we don't need £30m, why can't we afford anything close to £80k/week? Agree with your point but I reckon Llambias probably meant it would go against the wage structure rather than us not being able to afford it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we don't need £30m, why can't we afford anything close to £80k/week? Firstly we will have a budget for this season, putting Carroll on 80k would disrupt that. Also the club rightly wants to bring every players wage to a respectable level, Carroll for 80k a week simply isn't worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thanks for the explanations everyone. Still think a compromise could have been reached if they were arsed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we don't need £30m, why can't we afford anything close to £80k/week? Firstly we will have a budget for this season, putting Carroll on 80k would disrupt that. Also the club rightly wants to bring every players wage to a respectable level, Carroll for 80k a week simply isn't worth it. Thanks for the explanations everyone. Still think a compromise could have been reached if they were arsed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. That big sums of money don't overwhelm someone like loadsamoney Ashley when it comes to someone trying to pry a player off us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thanks for the explanations everyone. Still think a compromise could have been reached if they were arsed. That is true, both sides have acted stupidly in all of this regarding comm's and their actions. Still think Carroll is mostly to blame though over the whole new contract saga. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Once again it would have been easier had he just fucking said that btw. Edit: Also applies to this: Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. That big sums of money don't overwhelm someone like loadsamoney Ashley when it comes to someone trying to pry a player off us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. I think you're being a touch pedantic Dave, the club position is pretty clear on this one. Personally for me the real issue is whether we should have done more to keep Carroll here. He had just signed a 5 year contract so we didn't have to sell him, transfer request or not. All things considered though it was probably the right decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelly Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. Probably because alot of people believe he going to put the money into ashley pocket Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. Probably because alot of people believe he going to put the money into ashley pocket And the quote contradicts that belief? I disagree. It's an embarrassing reminder of who they are that they feel the need to explain that it's going to be kept within the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. All things considered though it was probably the right decision. Probably not. But hey, everyone with their opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Fact is, he was under a 5 year contract. It's not a Charlie Adam situation whereby we have to let him go soon before his value goes down. There's absolutely no fucking reason they had to sell because he wanted a new deal. He was under contract for 5 more years regardless. They could have offerered an improved one in the summer if they wished, to keep him happy but the fact that they're making it out like they had no choice but to let him go is total bollocks. They chose to take the cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If we don't need £30m, why can't we afford anything close to £80k/week? Firstly we will have a budget for this season, putting Carroll on 80k would disrupt that. Also the club rightly wants to bring every players wage to a respectable level, Carroll for 80k a week simply isn't worth it. I do like the clubs apparent policy on wages to be honest. If any player wants huge sums of money to pull on the shirt they should be told to fuck off. We don't want another Owen, Viduka, Smith, Duff, Geremi etc etc etc on the books. We need a good wage structure, it should easily seperate those players who want to come here to play their football in front of a great audience from those who want to come here to boost their bank balances. i.e. if Sebastien Larsson wanted to become a Newcastle United player, he would be one. Not that I have a lot of confidence in the board but Sebastien Larsson isn't worth a decent chunk of our wage budget, if he wanted more than we were prepared to give him I'm fucking pleased the deal fell through, just as I will be in the summer with any similar deals. We might be extremely short on bodies but I'd much rather that than to have bulked out the squad with yet more money-hungry bastards like we've had in the past. At least with any potential new signings we can be pretty confident that they're here for footballing reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Oh, and why does Llambias directly relate the transfer fee to Ashley's personal wealth? Bit strange. Probably because alot of people believe he going to put the money into ashley pocket And the quote contradicts that belief? I disagree. It's an embarrassing reminder of who they are that they feel the need to explain that it's going to be kept within the club. It's embarrassing that they feel the need to remind us because most run on emotion rather than taking 5 minutes to look at the books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Fact is, he was under a 5 year contract. It's not a Charlie Adam situation whereby we have to let him go soon before his value goes down. There's absolutely no fucking reason they had to sell because he wanted a new deal. He was under contract for 5 more years regardless. They could have offerered an improved one in the summer if they wished, to keep him happy but the fact that they're making it out like they had no choice but to let him go is total bollocks. They chose to take the cash. Yeah, obviously we could have rejected the transfer request and the offer, and hoped that Carroll would knuckle down and play for us. Ashley obviously wasn't gutted to accept the £35m, he might even have been angry at Carroll for asking for more money. That's Ashley's part of the blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 ...They could have offerered an improved one in the summer if they wished... They had already told him that he'd get a new contract in the summer ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts